Male recombination in Brazilian populations of <i>Drosophila ananassae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With few exceptions, spontaneous crossing over does not normally occur in male Drosophila. Drosophila ananassae males show considerable amounts of crossing over. In wild males of D. ananassae from Asian (2008) and Brazilian populations (1986 and 2007) variable frequencies of meiotic crossing over, estimated from chiasmata counts, suggested the existence of factors controlling male crossing over in these populations. To corroborate for such prediction, we present data on spontaneous recombination in F1 males of D. ananassae heterozygous for chromosomes of the same Brazilian populations (1986) and marker chromosomes using three testers stocks. Mean recombination value was low, although high variability existed between individual frequencies. Recombination frequencies between lines in each tester stock were not significantly different, excepting when the 3ple-px and 3ple-cy testers were compared (p < 0.05). These two testers differ in respect to the regional distribution of crossovers. The occurrence of recombination in chromosomes 2 and 3 in F1 males tested with e(65) se; bri ru was not related, suggesting they are under independent genetic control. Our data are consistent with proposed genetic factors controlling male crossing over in the tester stocks and to the presence of enhancers and suppressors of male crossing over segregating in the Brazilian populations (1986).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".